Obamacare

Obama Administration Makes Secretive Last-Minute Deadline Change to Obamacare

|

Whitehouse.gov

Deadlines? Who needs 'em? Not when it comes to Obamacare anyway. Today was set to be the final day to sign up for coverage that begins on January 1 of next year. But the administration has quietly extended that deadline by an additional 24 hours. And by quietly, I mean, with no official announcement at all. News of the delay comes from two unnamed sources who confirmed the move to The Washington Post.

At midnight Monday, the official deadline arrives for Americans to sign up through the new federal health insurance exchange for health plans that begin Jan. 1. But, without any public announcement, Obama administration officials have changed the rules so that people will have an extra day to enroll, according to two individuals with knowledge of the switch.

Over the weekend, government officials and outside IT contractors working on the online marketplace's computer system made a software change that automatically gives people a Jan. 1 start date for their new coverage as long as they enroll by 11:59 p.m. on Christmas Eve. 

The administration had already delayed the deadline by a week; the original plan had been to cut off sign ups on December 15. But when it comes to Obamacare, the administration sticks to its original plans about as well as the average person sticks to his or her New Year's resolutions. Obamacare's deadlines are aspirational more than they are operational. 

Following the rocky rollout of Obamacare's online exchanges, and low sign-up numbers in the federal exchange system, the administration tacked an extra week on for potential enrollees. The move comes after an announcement late last Thursday night that individuals whose existing health plans were canceled as a result of the health law would be exempt from the individual mandate to purchase health insurance next year.  

Not to put too fine a point on it, this is a weird move: delaying the deadline…and not telling anyone? Not officially anyway. Even if you count the leaks to The Post as an announcement, it's an awfully strange way to set up an extension.

The last-minute timing is also rather telling. The change was made over the weekend, just before the last to sign up, right before a holiday week in which not many people are reading the news. That sounds an awful lot like the administration is nervous about sign-up numbers so far and is looking for way to nudge the totals a little bit higher without looking too desperate.

But desperate, and perhaps slightly panicked, is exactly how this looks. With lots of plan cancellations on the horizon, and sign up numbers running far short of what was projected prior to the launch of the exchanges, the administration appears to be grasping for some way to keep the law's potential failures at bay. Hence the slew of late-breaking amendments and updates we've seen over the past few weeks. 

Remember that just a couple weeks ago, when the administration announced another set of Obamacare-related deadline changes, a spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services refused to say that the administration was confident that more people would gain coverage next January than lose it. Secretive, last-minute changes like this don't exactly suggest that the administration's confidence has increased since then. Neither should anyone else's. 

NEXT: Thousands of Muslims in CAR Protest Disarmament Operation Carried Out By French Troops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What the fuck difference is a day supposed to make?

    1. Its the law, get over it, you stupid racist tea bagger.

      1. I know you are a troll, but I thought it worth mentioning that slavery was also, “the law.”

        So, under your pure non-racial reasoning, slavery should not have been challenged. Hey, after all, it was, “the law.”

        1. You seem new here. You might want to get your sarcasm detector properly calibrated for this place, because right now it’s not working at all.

        2. Turn your sarcasm meter on.

        3. Does anyone else share the sentiment that judges just write drivel and simply strike down laws they dont agree with just “because I said so”? Judges now are dictators for a favored minority against the will of the people.

      2. Its only the law until it is a gay marriage ban. Then it is not the law.

        We are tired of your hypocrisy. We live in an age where people have the most incoherent and unrational worldviews.

    2. It puts the bad news on Christmas, when no one is paying attention.

  2. Maybe Obama should sponsor a Festivus airing of grievances about the law.

    1. But then you’d have violent teabagging Koch drones protesting outside? How do you plan on dealing with that?

  3. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo…..es-in-2014

    Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Sunday said Democrats are feeling the weight of the troubles with Healthcare.gov as they prepare for the 2014 midterms.

    He added that Republicans are using the debacle surrounding the rollout of President Obama’s signature healthcare reform law to their advantage for the upcoming election cycle.

    “And even the Republicans who are my friends, they think that’s a great advantage they have,” Manchin said in an interview with CNN’s Candy Crowley on Sunday. “The Democrats are right now feeling the weight of it.”

    Those damned evil Rethuglicans are going to make a political issue out of this.

    1. How dare they play politics with their vital and popular piece of legislation!

      1. Oh, come now: we all know that, if their roles were reversed, or if Obamacare was going splendidly, then Democrats would never use that to their advantage. They’re above playing political games like that.

        1. That is because they only care about America Brian. And children. Don’t forget the children.

          1. They care so much about children they want one in the homes of every pedogay there is.

        2. Can you imagine if Romney had won? Every third word from every Democrat would be “sabotage”!

    2. Those conniving Republicans are going to take undue advantage of the fact that some constituents are losers, even though those losers are just a small number of noisy constituents who should be ignored by right-thinking people.

      1. Kind of like the gays.

  4. Isn’t the deadline specified in the law? How can the administration just arbitrarily change it?

    1. They can’t. But since the GOP is the stupid party and can’t seem to figure out how to use the courts the way the evil party does, they will get away with it.

      Seriously, how the hell are there not hundreds of law suits against this shit? It never fails to amaze me how stupid and lethargic the right is.

      1. But since the GOP is the stupid party and can’t seem to figure out how to use the courts the way the evil party does

        Hard to see how they’d be able to show standing.

        1. They’d have to find someone who wasn’t given an extension and have him sue on Equal Protection grounds.

        2. No it isn’t. Anyone who is subject to the mandate and purchased insurance before the deadline would have standing to sue over the deadline being moved. Moreover, they could sue for a writ of mandamus asking the court to make the government do its job. You really don’t need much to have standing other than a legitimate claim that the law actually affects you.

          1. I thought somebody had filed for a writ of mandamus? I’ll have to ask the in-house counsel.

          2. You really don’t need much to have standing other than a legitimate claim that the law actually affects you.

            You need to show HARM, not merely effect, and harm caused specifically by the deadline extension.

            The mandamus route is interesting but it’s unclear what action you’d be demanding the government to take.

            1. You need to show HARM, not merely effect, and harm caused specifically by the deadline extension.

              The harm is that you were forced to meet a deadline when others were not. The action is to make the government consider the people who didn’t meet the original deadline in noncompliance.

              1. The harm is that you were forced to meet a deadline when others were not.

                But this administration is totally about equality.

                Except when they’re not.

              2. The harm is that you now live under a government of tyrants where there is no rule of law. This will cost me future money as it will surely slow economic growth in the future.

            2. You purchased insurance when you didn’t have to. You paid more than you other wise would have.
              That’s the harm.

              1. So if I get a parking ticket for parking on the wrong side of the street and the car next to me, also on the wrong side of the street, doesn’t get a ticket, can I sue the government to force them to give the other car a parking ticket too?

                1. Back to the argument over activity versus inactivity.

      2. “Seriously, how the hell are there not hundreds of law suits against this shit? It never fails to amaze me how stupid and lethargic the right is.”

        Particularly not *announcing* changes. WIH are people supposed to do, call the WH to see when taxes are due this year?

        1. So if they move the tax deadline from April 15 to April 23, taxpayers could sue? Not sure how that could possibly work.

          If they moved the deadline to March 15 without legislation that would be a different story.

          1. So if they move the tax deadline from April 15 to April 23, taxpayers could sue?

            If they moved it for white people but no one else…yes. Yes they could.

            As soon as the change applies to some citizens but not others, every citizen not given the benefit can claim it violates the rational basis test.

            1. If they moved it for white people but no one else…yes. Yes they could.

              Which isn’t the situation here.

              As soon as the change applies to some citizens but not others, every citizen not given the benefit can claim it violates the rational basis test.

              Except this change applies to everyone.

              1. So Obama declares that Inauguration Day 2017 will be moved from January 20th to December 20th. It “applies to everyone.” Does anyone have standing to sue?

        2. At this point, does anyone, including the Administration, know to any degree of certainty exactly who is or is not subject to the mandate?

          At some point they are going to have to try and enforce this law against someone in court. And when they do, I think they are going to find it very difficult to explain what the hell the law means much less why this guy violated it.

          And as an added bonus, every time they delay or grant an exception to some mandate, it gets harder and harder to justify to a court why there is any legitimate government interest to any of the mandates.

          1. I actually think the way the law penal tax is currently written they can’t end up in court.

            There are currently no criminal penalties for failure to pay.

      3. The problem with using the courts is finding someone who has *standing* to challenge the law. After all – if you can’t point to any injury due to this then you don’t have standing to sue.

        1. The standing issue is the important one, here.

          I’m thinking htere might be people other than individual enrollees who have standing here. Like, the insurance companies, who are getting buttfucked by all this to-ing and fro-ing.

          Naturally, they don’t want to queer their chances of getting into the “risk corridor” insurance bail-out funds, so I’m not looking for any help there.

          Perhaps providers could claim standing, as these delays may push back effective dates on coverage to their detriment? State insurance commissioners might also have standing, to the extent all this thrashing around interferes with their administration of their jobs?

          As far as individuals go, you’ve got a good equal protection claim for the exemption given only to those that had policies cancelled. The deadline extension, I’m not so sure.

          1. Equal protection doesn’t apply to the federal government. Read the 14th amendment.

            1. That provision having been unnecessary for the Federal government, since it was not granted any power that it could apply unevenly, prior to the sixteenth and eighteenth amendments.

            2. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

              Good point. Fortunately, an action by the federal government that would violate the Equal Protection Clause is a violation of the Due Process Clause.

    2. The law is whatever Obama and his leftist supporters say it is. Kind of like the boundaries of acceptable speech.

    3. How can the administration just arbitrarily change it?

      FYTW Clause, of course.

    4. Who’s going to stop them?

      When you have a dishonest, sociopathic administration in place, that’s the only question that matters.

      The courts can’t stop them because no one has standing to sue.

      There’s precious little that Congress can do, and of course the Dems have the Senate locked down and have shown a willingness to ban filibusters whenever it suits them.

      1. So…there is no such thing as the rule of law, then. So what’s the point of government if Obama can just go all warlord over everyone’s asses? Here, I’ll predict your answer: BECAUSE RULES AND SHIT.

        1. Not sure how extending a deadline is “going warlord over everyone’s asses”. When he does something that harms people there will be an opportunity to sue.

          And of course, the ultimate opportunity for adult supervision comes in November. Too bad the electorate fucked up the previous chance to stop BO in 2012, not that you “principled non-voters” and Romneyphobes helped at all either.

          1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            I was waiting for you to go Tulpical. Thanks for being the moron we all know you to be, I was getting worried.

          2. this isn’t “extending a deadline.” It’s making ad hoc changes to your signature law because you know no one will call you on it.

            1. OK, but the nature of that ad hoc change is to extend a deadline. No one is harmed by that other than people trying to make political hay from the program’s failures, which isn’t a harm that you can use in court.

          3. Not sure how extending a deadline is “going warlord over everyone’s asses”.

            This is how you set a precedent for Presidential diktats that do actually harm people. “Look, if we have the authority to push a deadline back, we have the authority to bring a deadline forward, right?”

            1. Oh I agree that is the endgame they’re after. But this particular diktat is impossible to show harm from.

          4. You mean that Romney that would have continued most, if not all, of Bush III’s policies AND would have been blamed for all of Obamacares problems after his potential fight to repeal it failed?

            Yeah, too bad he didn’t win.

      2. As we pointed out above, there is standing. But they could just ignore a court order as they tied it up in appeals.

        There is no reason to stop them. As I say below, repealing and delaying this bit by bit is just making the resulting harm worse. You are watching them commit suicide. Why get in the way?

        1. “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

        2. You asserted that there was standing, but didn’t justify that asserition.

          1. Yes I did. I can only write the words, I can’t make you understand them. Anyone who is subject to that deadline, can sue to have it enforced on other people. The government, without legal authority, has forced me to meet a deadline while allowing others an extension and I am harmed by that because I could have waited another day and perhaps got a better deal or known my options better.

            Did Bo highjack your account?

            1. Listen, John, you may be a lawyer, but Tulpa is a community college math professor, and that means he knows way more about the law than you. It’s actually pretty insulting that you don’t properly defer to his superior knowledge. You should really apologize to Tulpy-Poo.

              1. Your embrace of credentialism is amusing, Epi. If John’s a lawyer he should be able to explain how one proves harm from mere envy.

            2. Yes I did. I can only write the words, I can’t make you understand them.

              You can bring an idiot to knowledge, but you can’t make it learn.

            3. The government, without legal authority, has forced me to meet a deadline while allowing others an extension and I am harmed by that because I could have waited another day and perhaps got a better deal or known my options better.

              Still not seeing how you were harmed by the extension. You could claim to be harmed by the original deadline, but not the extension. Once you’re already enrolled the fact that other people got an extension doesn’t affect you at all.

              1. What if you (in a rush to meet the deadline) signed up for something that wasn’t what you originally expected? Someone could complain the enrollment process wasn’t getting any better for them and they just had to pick a plan at the last possible moment to meet the deadline and avoid the penaltax. Not likely, but website was plagued by glitches.

                Obamacare deadline isn’t like a final exam. If the professor postponed it at the last minute, then it’s great news for the ones who procrastinated, and it doesn’t negatively affect those who came prepared.

                This isn’t the first extension. Are we certain that the insurance companies made ZERO adjustments to the prices or the plans after these extensions? If there are even slightly better deals made available after Obama delayed the deadline, then plenty people got screwed. I guess they could cancel and buy another plan but, what a hassle.

    5. If you like your deadline, you can keep it.

    6. because they are tyrants – GET IT

  5. What pert of LAW OF THE LAND don’t you understand?

    Don’t you get it? The President has been entrusted with the care and feeding of Society’s best interests, which means autocratic rule over everything.

  6. I’m sure the next announcement will be Obama repealing O-care. Or just delaying the whole by a year or longer.

    1. He will end up there. he is just going to get there little by little. Repealing the law piecemeal is just about the most damaging way you can do it. He would have been better off just delaying the whole thing. But Obama opts for the most idiotic and damaging option.

      1. “But Obama opts for the most idiotic and damaging option.”

        It’s his “legacy”!

      2. That’s what I don’t get – it would be far less damaging (IMO) to have come out *before* the exchanges went live and said that they weren’t ready, pushing release back a year, carry on.

        Sure, they would have been laughed at but they could retort with ‘what you want a buggy product on time or one that works?’

        This, this is not the sort of thing real ‘leaders’ do.

        1. Sure, they would have been laughed at but they could retort with ‘what you want a buggy product on time or one that works?’

          He is a narcissistic idiot who fears being laughed at more than he fears harming other people. You are right, that would have been the smart thing to do. But his deep character flaws made it impossible for him to do it.

        2. But then they would have had to do something the Republicans wanted. And looking weak in front of Republicans is the worst sin of all.

      3. He could have so easily delayed it by a year when the Republicans were clamoring for it, while getting them to give him a concession in exchange for it. But he wouldn’t have looked like he won, so that was right out.

        1. I think the takeaway from all this is that we should be grateful every day that Obama is as stupid and venal as he is.

          1. Thank God.

            1. No, thank Rod. Rod Stewart, that is.

              1. Todd not God or Rod.

                Would anyone like to join me in praising Todd?

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26FAZua2fFo

        2. Unfortunately, I think his refusal was far more clever than that. There were several times when he promised to veto legislation proposed by the GOP while he was issuing executive orders to do exactly the same thing the GOP was proposing.

          He (or more likely his more clever handlers) is trying to set a precedent where the president makes the law and Congress is relegated to rubber stamping the president’s decisions. Why? Well, the map is getting more and more challenging for the GOP. Once Texas flips (immigration reform) it’s over; we’re getting permanent Democrat presidency.

          1. I will give you credit Tulpa, you are vile enough and stupid enough to fully understand these people. That is probably what he thinks. I, however doubt we are headed towards a permanent anything.

          2. There are way too many independents and purple spots on the map. Just last year Dems were claiming permanent victory and now their approval ratings and approval for their platforms are falling. This also assumes the GOP makes no strategic changes ever. I know they seem like total idiots, but losing a few elections has a way of smarting you up.

            1. If the presidential election is the only one that matters, it doesn’t matter what their approval ratings are except in years divisible by 4. That’s the point.

              And in those years, well it’s time to crank up the War on Women and One Percent bullshit.

              It’s funny how libertarians, who have never held power or won elections, think they understand the power game better than the pros.

              1. I must have missed the part where you’re a pro and not armchair quarterbacking like the rest of us.

            2. There are way too many independents and purple spots on the map.

              Romney won independents by a pretty decent margin. The problem was a lot of Republicans sitting on their hands because they didn’t like Mormons or Romneycare, and the fact that there are more Democrats than Republicans to start with.

          3. I am skeptical of ever seeing permanent Democrat rule in my lifetime. Socialism is great to campaign on, because you can convince a large mass of idiots that it will benefit them and only hurt the hated other, but in reality, the policies are destructive and everyone suffers from them. As soon as they get in power and enact their socialistic policies, the harm damages their platform.

            “Social stability is ensured, not by the cessation of the demand for change?for the needy and the restless will never cease to cry for it?but by the fact that change in its progress must at last hurt some class of men who are strong enough to arrest it. The army of so-called reform, in every stage of its advance, necessarily converts a detachment of its force into opponents. The more rapid the advance the more formidable will the desertion become, till at last a point will be reached where the balance between the forces of conservation and destruction will be redressed, and the political equilibrium be restored.”
            – Lord Salisbury

      4. first time in his life that he’s being held accountable for something. No surprise, really, that he has no idea how to handle it.

      5. Piecemeal is the most invisible way to repeal it, and that’s all that matters. You don’t want to be seen destroying your most important initiative in one blow. If they repeal it bit by bit over the course of a decade or so, they can have the fantasy of it being a “reform”.

  7. It really seems that they’ve gone full retard.
    I can understand the panic bailing to keep the boat afloat.
    I can understand trying to win the news cycle (though retard – not full retard) so your bootlickers don’t lose heart.
    But a secret, 24 hour extension to a deadline that most of your targeted groups don’t even know extist?

    Are we sure Obama isn’t fleeing the country before it all comes down on his head? What does this buy them? Enough time to empty the bank accounts and pawn the whitehouse laptops?

    1. Are we sure Obama isn’t fleeing the country before it all comes down on his head?

      So *that’s* why the administrations sudden interest in military intervention in Africa.

    2. The secret 24 hour extension is (i’m sure) meant to be let known to a select few, so they can get in before the deadline, when nobody else is trying to log in. It’s like having a back door for the black friday sale.

  8. Let GLOOM prevail.

    Lt. Gen. Mikhail T. Kalashnikov, the arms designer credited by the Soviet Union with creating the AK-47, the first in a series of rifles and machine guns that would indelibly associate his name with modern war and become the most abundant firearms ever made, died on Monday in Izhevsk, the capital of the Udmurtia republic, where he lived. He was 94.

    1. Am I supposed to be sad that some commie who made a rifle whose claim to fame was that it was so simple that even other commies could fuck it up, finally went off to the big commune in the sky?

      1. That was one fine piece of design, though.

        Look at it this way: if it wasn’t for Kalashnikov, people wouldn’t have known what a piece of shit the M-16 was. So he did us that service.

        1. The M16 was not a piece of shit. It is a fabulous rifle and better than anything the commies ever made. The problem was the army were cheap bastards who didn’t go to smokeless powder or issue proper cleaning kits. Once that was done the M16 was fine.

          1. M16s are very accurate and a nice piece of machinery, but the AK’s ability to function pretty damn well even with total neglect and abuse is extremely impressive. Kalashnikov furthered the idea of arming people across the world (for both good and bad reasons) more than just about anyone else.

          2. Yeah, they still don’t issue proper cleaning kits – at least proper for desert conditions.

            And it still would have been better with a gas-piston rather gas-impingement.

            I used the thing for a while when I was working with the Seabees – I can only imagine the amount of hours an actual infantry grunt (who actually *fires* the thing)puts in on cleaning.

            The M-16 is a standard piece of US military hardware design – very capable but a nightmare to maintain.

          3. The M16 is a very functional design that’s easy to take apart and put back together once you get the parts figured out. For target shooting, hunting, or even home defense, you can’t get much better in a modern rifle.

            But I wouldn’t want it out in the bush for any extended period of time. I’ll never forget the fucking thing jamming on me time after time in mob school, when we were dealing with rainy, muddy conditions and even basic field maintenance was damn near impossible. As far as a battle rifle, the AK-47 is just about perfect.

      2. Engineering is the art of making something work every time, even in the hands of an idiot.

        1. In Oklahoma, we call it “idiot proof”.

          1. In Texas, we called it “Aggie proof”. In my real career, I’ve found that survival of the derpest guarantees that new and better idiots will come into being.

  9. In Massachusetts, they’ve decided they’re going to assume that anyone who filled out an application but never picked a plan must have “had trouble with the website”, so they’re just going to put them in plans and send them letters telling them they’re signed up.

    I have to say that tops any of the federal “extension” gamesmanship I’ve heard of yet.

    They are trying ANYTHING to get to put out a number that says a lot of people “signed up” by January 1st. Extensions, forcing the insurers to cover people for free, etc. But just shoving people into plans they never even selected seems like about as low as you can go to me.

    I bet you they’ll send people premium notices for the insurance plans they never selected, too. And then send them to collection when the consumers refuse to pay for stuff they never wanted.

    http://bostonherald.com/news_o…..applicants

    1. The next step is to start insuring dead people.

      1. Why not? In Chicago they already vote.

        1. …and if they vote I’m quite sure they would have voted for Obamacare.

    2. They are running up against a hard deadline that not even Obama can waive:

      The requirement that you pay your first month’s premium in order to get the coverage.

      That is what will determine how many people are actually insured. So the number is going to be very, very low, and their ability to armwave about people who have website accounts as being “enrolled” will vanish.

      1. You can waive all of the deadlines you want. But that will not change the fact that millions of people are no longer going to have health insurance and not be able to afford getting new policies.

        1. They don’t care that people can’t afford the ACA policies.

          “Fuck you, pay,” is literally their attitude.

          If you don’t qualify for a subsidy, you’re a taker and a wrecker and it’s about time you gave up 20% of your income to see to it that people with pre-existing conditions can get insurance and not declare bankruptcy.

          Why should they declare bankruptcy and not you? Just because they’re the ones who consumed the health care and stuff.

          1. I know that is what they think. I don’t see that working out very well for them.

          2. Those subsidies come back at the end of the year and not applied immediately to the price of the premiums, right?

            1. You can choose to do it either way.

      2. Obama already waived that one.

        Or, to be more precise, he told the insurers he “strongly suggests” they waive it.

        1. he told the insurers he “strongly suggests” they waive it.

          All he’s gotten so far is a few companies (including some big ones), saying they will give people an extra week to pay.

      3. Sounds like a good investment opportunity for the Fed: insurance premium advances.

  10. I think they are just re-writing the code of federal regulations on the fly.

    1. Well, no. Rewriting the CFR requires notice and comment rulemaking (A fig leaf, to be sure).

      They aren’t even bothering with that. This is 100% governance by press release.

  11. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

    For starters, economic inequality is manifestly real, growing and dangerous. The gulf between the penthouse and the projects is obscenely wide. Obama cited some of the startling numbers: The top 10 percent of Americans used to take in a third of the national income. Now they gobble up half. The typical corporate C.E.O. used to make 30 times as much as the average worker. Now the boss makes 270 times as much as the minion. Many factors have led to this trend, including the offshoring of work to low-paid foreign labor, the automation of everything from manufacturing to meter-reading, a tax code that allows the accumulation of riches at the top, the slow growth of educational attainment, the demise of strong unions, a collapse of the social contract.

    ——–

    Liberals from Elizabeth Warren to Third Way have one other thing in common: a Republican-controlled House that hews to a discredited gospel of gutting government, cutting taxes and letting the market sort it out. Barring a purge of Congress, most of the ideas put forth by the liberals, center-left or left-left, are going nowhere in the partisan sludge pit that is Washington. If you want to see good intentions turned into actual success stories, innovation pressed into service against inequality, you should turn your attention elsewhere ? to cities. In the new year, I plan to do that.

    1. Ruin all the cities you want, and I will laugh as your ideology creates its own nightmare.

      Detroit will be their blueprint.

    2. Yeah, this really seems like the exact background you want from your NY Times former executive editor.

      Lived in the Soviet Union as a correspondent for years yet still obviously longs for its return and has the gall to bitch about American “income inequality”? Check.

      Wrote a book about Mandela and articles about “why do people care he was a communist?” Check.

      Article about how Obama’s issue is messaging–“setting the agenda”? Check.

      I remember years ago when I would note that publications like the NYT/NPR had leftist biases and the reaction would be denial. Now, I don’t get denial. I get, “Buh-buh-buh FOX NEWS!” Because, you know, that’s a real argument winner. And, speaking of years ago, he’s been working for the NYT for decades.

    3. Liberals from Elizabeth Warren to Third Way have one other thing in common:

      They’re thieves that need the government to rob from people because they’re too lazy to do it themselves.

  12. Lots of whining about how teh One Per Centum has captured government and instituted policies which entrench their wealth and influence. Solution? More government. That will put and end to the ossification of the economy, Shirley.

    1. Now you’re starting to understand. Government is us and we are government. That’s what a government of, by, and for the people means. It means we are government. So when the corporations control the government, they control us.

      The solution is to give more power to us, to government, so we can control the corporations that control it.

      If that fails, then the solution is more power to us, to government, so we can control the corporations that control it.

      If that fails, then the solution is more power to us, to government, so we can control the corporations that control it.

      If that fails, then the solution is more power to us, to government, so we can control the corporations that control it.

      If that fails, then the solution is more power to us, to government, so we can control the corporations that control it.

    2. Funny how they elide the fact that dis-equality has sped up since their hero has been in charge.

      Mendacious fucktards.

      1. Mendacious fucktards.

        To call them…well most of them anyway…. mendacious is to give them far too much credit. Moronic Fucktards is much more apropo!

        1. And . . . a nice band name, too!

  13. Technical Difficulties with the exchanges and their constant requirement to renter information any time you navigate to a different page (and the absolutely broken navigation system) have reduced my mother to tears, and yet she still thinks Obamacare is a good idea. (She then cried tears of thanksgiving when she heard of the extension) It is sad to see an otherwise rational person hoodwinked to this level.

  14. The deadenders need re-assurance. Just clap you hands and say “I Believe!”
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/d…..ll-survive

    I’ve been thinking of the Japanese soldiers who held out in the island jungles long after the war was over.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout

  15. Funny how they elide the fact that dis-equality has sped up since their hero has been in charge.

    I’d be deliriously happy if they would even admit the correlation between the growth of the Federal Register and the ossification of the economy and income disparity.

    1. That would require looking beyond intent, which they are incapable of doing.

  16. You libertarian nay-sayers have it all wrong. According to the NY Times:

    Because of record traffic on HealthCare.gov on Monday morning, officials said they would allow consumers to sign up through the end of Tuesday for coverage that starts Jan. 1.

    See? This is simply a case of government trying to accommodate the busy Christmas healthcare insurance shopping season. It’s also an example of how wonderfully flexible the government is compared to the free market.

    1. It’s also an example of how incredibly popular it is.

    2. Also, the chocolate ration is being increased from six grams to five grams.

    3. Because of record traffic on HealthCare.gov on Monday morning

      Over 50K at a time is considered an overload for this website.

      Pathetically underengineered. And, one still searches in vain for the statutory provision that either (a) creates a waiver/extension or (b) authorizes the Secretary to give a waiver/extension in these circumstances.

  17. L’Etat, c’est moi.

    Supposedly siad by Louis XIV, but sounded more or more like Barack H. Obama Jr.

    1. applies well to both

  18. Rule of Law is beginning to sound so very cliche.

  19. The changing of the law falls in line with executive powers to oversee laws and adjust to accommodate the transition. Congress has the power to either refine the law to allow for the executive branch to be in compliance with the execution the law or has the power to impeach the president for overstepping his bounds. This is a standard checks and balances. Too bad we have the worst senate in its history.

  20. America If you lose your coverage, your doctor, your insurance BLAME a Democrat. If your rates go up astronomically and you can’t get what you were promised??Next time you go and vote…remember WHO did this to YOU! DEMOCRATS!

    1. and the voters that voted for him and the non-voters that sat the last two elections out

  21. Hard to figure out where all the secrets are. I would say, generally speaking, that the fine print in old insurance policies were the biggest secrets, especially if you really got sick.

    Extending the opportunity to enroll in health care that begins Jan 1, doesn’t seem like such a bad deal, even it someone thought it was a secret until everyone found out.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.